Print 136 comment(s) - last by ajcoyote.. on Apr 2 at 11:12 PM

  (Source: Lightning Car Company)

  (Source: Lightning Car Company)
LCC hopes to crush gasoline rivals with the 700 HP Lightning GT

Advanced battery technology is becoming a commonplace in today's energy efficient vehicles. Today's hybrid vehicles make use of nickel-metal hydride (NiMH) batteries and hybrids with advanced lithium-ion batteries will be hitting U.S. roads within the coming months.

Lithium-ion batteries are also finding their way into all-electric vehicles like the Tesla Roadster and the Fisker Hybrid Premium Sports Sedan (HPSS). The Tesla roadster can sprint to 60 MPH in 5.7 seconds and reach a top speed of 130 MPH. The Fisker HPSS, on the other hand, will go 0-60 MPH in 5.8 seconds while its top speed is pegged at 125 MPH.

It looks as though another all-electric vehicle is about to enter the fray -- Lightning Car Company (LCC) last week unveiled its Lightning GT. The British car company said that at least one model of its Lightning GT will have roughly 700 HP available on tap from a Hi-Pa Drive electric powertrain (consisting of four 120 kW permanent magnet brushless motors) and 36 kW NanoSafe battery system -- torque figures should also be quite lofty for the vehicle given the intense twisting force available with electric motors.

The high-performance version of the Lightning GT will dash to 60 MPH in less than 4 seconds. LCC claims that a less powerful, extended-range model will have a driving range of 250 miles -- expect the range for the 700 HP version to be far less.

The sleek Lightning GT will feature a lightweight body constructed of Kevlar composites and carbon fiber. The vehicle features a tubular spaceframe backbone chassis, while 20" cast aluminum wheels connect to the independent front and rear suspension.

LCC is currently taking £15,000 ($30,000 USD) deposits for those looking to get their hands on a Lightning GT. The full price for the vehicle is reported to be in the $300,000 USD range -- about three times that of the Tesla Roadster.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Desslok on 3/10/2008 3:34:21 PM , Rating: 2
Has Tesla even built one production car yet? I know they were supposed to build a production plant in New Mexico but I am pretty sure that is dead in the water.

RE: Tesla
By Brandon Hill on 3/10/2008 3:37:02 PM , Rating: 3
The Tesla Roadster already passed federal crash tests (see link in the article) and is scheduled to begin production next week:

RE: Tesla
By Xerio on 3/10/2008 3:51:46 PM , Rating: 4
From the USA Today article referenced above:
Tesla is being touted as the first of a wave of electric cars that will bring the most profound change in the auto industry since the first Model T rolled off Ford Motor's (F) assembly line 100 years ago. From Toyota (TM) to General Motors, (GM) the quest for clean air and independence from foreign oil is leading to the wall socket.
Do people not realize how most of the electricity in the U.S. is generated?

“Woo hoo! I am saving the world! Let’s plug my car into my wall socket, the magic energy source!”?

RE: Tesla
By gamefreak32 on 3/10/2008 3:59:45 PM , Rating: 4
I asked this same question to one of my engineering teachers. The idea is to have them plugged in at night. The power plants produce the same amount of electricity throughout the day and at night most of the electricity goes unused. Since electricity can not be stored, is is more efficient.

RE: Tesla
By Xerio on 3/10/2008 4:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with that is getting people to only charge their cars at night.

Fortunately, that is when most cars are hanging around in garages, but still. Banking on the assumption that people will only charge their cars at night is not reason enough to say that we are polluting the world less by using electric cars. Now, if there were more nuclear and solar plants than there are coal/petroleum/natural gas plants, then I would recommend everyone go out and buy an electric car. Otherwise, whether you drive electric or gasoline powered vehicles you are still polluting and using fossil fuels.

RE: Tesla
By Motley on 3/10/2008 5:20:47 PM , Rating: 5
No, they are banking on the assumption that the majority of cars will be able to be charged at night. It doesn't need to be an all or nothing proposition. Also, once cars switch from gas to electric, it will be much easier to implement solar/hydro/wind/nuclear power plants.

Once that happens the electic companies can then use whatever source is most efficient and/or economical. The whole country could literally switch from gas to coal to nuclear to fusion without consumers needing to do anything at all, or even at the flip of a switch (A very large one). For example, say there is a large coal mine that suddenly stops producing coal (for whatever reason). The electric companies could turn to their nuclear/hydro/solar plants to help soften the blow. Right now, if the price of oil goes up, you pay for it at the gas pump. No matter how much cheaper the alternatives might be.

RE: Tesla
By EglsFly on 3/11/2008 1:02:40 AM , Rating: 2
Electric cars / Electric Hybrid cars are what we need!

The most important aspect is it will reduce our dependency on foreign oil.
Our Electricity coming from Nuclear, Coal, Hydro, Natural Gas, Solar, Wind, etc... All together this combination reduces our oil consumption. These plants are much more efficient at producing power than internal combustion engines on cars and pollute less.
In addition, it is much cheaper to fuel/power these cars with electricity from the grid, than it is purchasing gasoline. The hurdle being that they need to get the initial purchase price down. This will happen as technology continues to advance and volume goes up.

You can take whatever angle you want, whether its less pollution, or less oil consumption, cheaper fuel/power, either way, these type of cars are a better solution than what we currently have.

Personally I am looking forward to seeing the Chevrolet Volt enter production in the next 2 years. Check out the video:

RE: Tesla
By ineedaname on 3/11/2008 2:16:44 PM , Rating: 2
EglsFly is right on the dot. I always see people complaining how hybrid/electric cars do not save the environment and what not. I would consider myself an environmentalist myself but the viewpoint above isn't what's important. What's important is getting off from OIL. The point is to have an alternative. Gas prices are going up and its not stopping until we run out of oil. Not to mention all the carbon emissions from it.

Many environmental fanatics like my geography prof are just too extreme and only look at the environmental impact without considering the position a company has to take. You can't just expect a car company to mass produce hydrogen cars out of nowhere. That would mean taking a HUGE risk of going out of business. There are many factors such as pleasing shareholders that means it is not possible to take such risks. There needs to be steps to facilitate the transition. A lot of infrastructure has to be put in before other options can be viable.

By having electric cars available it would create demand for companies to find better and cleaner ways to produce energy. Its hard for companies to push these things when the demand is so low. It may also create opportunities for hydrogen cars to peer in later on. Without these baby steps, reaching a later environmentally friendly solution is near impossible.

So you can call it as environmentally unfriendly as you like but without this lesser evil you won't ever reach your environmentally friendly goal.

RE: Tesla
By Spuke on 3/11/2008 4:53:12 PM , Rating: 2
Its hard for companies to push these things when the demand is so low.
For an environmentalist, you sound very reasonable and make very valid and logical points.

RE: Tesla
By mattflaschen on 3/12/2008 4:30:25 AM , Rating: 2
You can't just expect a car company to mass produce hydrogen cars out of nowhere. That would mean taking a HUGE risk of going out of business.

A hydrogen fuel cell is really fundamentally no different from a battery. You still have to "charge" (separate the hydrogen) it somehow, and that requires either electricity or fossil fuels (for instance, natural gas).

RE: Tesla
By dever on 3/11/2008 3:44:17 PM , Rating: 2
Also, once cars switch from gas to electric, it will be much easier to implement solar/hydro/wind/nuclear power plants.
Easier? How?

And why is nuclear getting lumped together with its step sisters - Darrel, Darrel & Darrel?

RE: Tesla
By mholler on 3/10/2008 5:10:42 PM , Rating: 3
Your engineering teacher is a bit confused. If the power plants produced the same amount of power at night, when there is less demand, as they do during the day then the frequency would skyrocket and all of our breakers would trip or our electronics would fry. Generators increase and decrease their output based on demand in order to maintain a constant frequency (60 Hz in the U.S.).

If you increase the demand at night by plugging in a bunch of cars, you also increase the amount of fuel needed to produce the energy. However, it is true that power plants produce energy more efficiently and with relatively less emissions than typical internal combustion engines.

RE: Tesla
By mindless1 on 3/11/2008 12:09:31 AM , Rating: 2
I would imagine that what the teacher meant was that the power plant has the capability to produce as much energy at night and yet currently a lower demand at night, so the reserve capacity would be put to this use.

RE: Tesla
By rudy on 3/11/2008 12:24:08 PM , Rating: 2
Power plants use large generators usually they have several ones around here have about 4 per building. The trick is that 1 generator runs most efficiently at a particular speed. Also they cannot be just turned off and on in a split second. So power plants put a fair amount of time into figuring out when to turn off and on how many and what generators. But at night they probably have less running.

Wind and water based power on the other hand is just more like this where you could get power out of them for little extra cost at night but might not be able to use it.

Overall there are advantages to charging at night, and I think that overall its best if we are not pinned down to 1 power source. Although I will be a late adopter I forget to charge my cell phone all the time would hate to wake up and not be able to make it to work. Also getting more gas is easy and portable, if I run out I can walk to a gas station and buy a can and fill it up. I don't know how battery power will work out in those respects.

RE: Tesla
By Spuke on 3/11/2008 4:57:43 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know how battery power will work out in those respects.
You'll have to get the car towed OR maybe tow trucks will start carrying big charging units and give you enough juice to get to the next town. I think the hotel industry might see a small boost because of this too. I wonder how much it will cost to get your battery charged by a tow truck?

RE: Tesla
By PrinceGaz on 3/11/2008 1:40:49 AM , Rating: 2
The AC frequency is unrelated to load, it is the voltage which can drop with an unexpected load increase. The loading across the day can be fairly accurately predicted by historical records on power-demand, meaning that peak-load power-stations are only brought on line when needed.

Electric cars are always going to be more efficient than ICE powered ones, because even the worst power-stations are much less polluting and end up much more efficient than an ICE.

RE: Tesla
By QuantumPion on 3/11/2008 9:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
This is incorrect. Supply must equal demand at all times, if there is excess demand, frequency will dip. When this happens, extra peak load generators are brought online. These peak load generators (often natural gas turbines) specifically use the deviation from 60 hz frequency to determine how much extra power to produce.

There is a separate effect of voltage suppression when transmission lines are overloaded and there is insufficient reactive power to meet the demand, but this is a local effect.

RE: Tesla
By EE Pete on 3/11/2008 11:27:13 AM , Rating: 2
"Supply must equal demand at all times, if there is excess demand, frequency will dip."

Agreed. But why will the frequency dip? Aren't the turbines controlled by pressure? I thought the 60Hz standard was directly tied to generator rpm ... 60/s.

I thought if there is an excess load only the amplitude of the voltage would dip. And at some level more generators would come online, spin up to 60Hz and then get connected to the grid.

Am I missing something?

RE: Tesla
By jimbojimbo on 3/11/2008 2:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not exactly certain but from my experience running large generators, as the load increases you would see the hertz decrease but the voltage stay the same. At this point you rev up the generator some more and the hertz levels out, voltage staying the same. If the load decreases, the hertz starts to go over 60 while voltage stays the same.

RE: Tesla
By mholler on 3/11/2008 3:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
Electrity travels in waves, and frequency is a measure of the number of waves per unit of time. Voltage is effectively the "height" of the wave. When there is more demand then there is generation, it effectively stretches the wave causing the waves to flatten and the time between each wave to increase. Thus, voltage and frequency decrease. The same is true in reverse. If there is too much generation then the waves are "squeezed" causing frequency and voltage to increase.

This is a very simplistic explanation, but it should give you a general idea of how voltage and frequency are related in the grid.

RE: Tesla
By rcc on 3/11/2008 4:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
Very simplistic, enough so to give people a wildly inaccurate picture of what's going on.

When you load a generator, it wants to slow down. If you've ever had one of the bike lights that has a generator that rides on the tire you've experienced it first hand. When you activate the light, you have to work harder to pedal the bike at the same speed.

For power generation, when the generator starts to slow, they apply more power, steam, hydrokinetic energy, etc. to keep it at the correct speed. If the generator were allowed to slow, the frequency would dip.

On the other hand, as the load begins to drop, the power station senses this and decreases the driving force on the generator to maintain it at the proper speed (and frequency). You might get a spike of change if load went from 100% to 0% instantly, but it's regulated well enough that you won't actually see the changes during a normal day night cycle.

RE: Tesla
By theapparition on 3/12/2008 9:22:10 AM , Rating: 2
Very good explanation, I was just about to post up the reason and you explained it perfectly.

RE: Tesla
By Hieyeck on 3/12/2008 3:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
Up this man

RE: Tesla
By Spoelie on 3/11/2008 4:27:57 AM , Rating: 2
True for traditional power plants, not so for nuclear. Their output is fairly constant and most of the time it is not feasible to vary output with demand. Judging by past articles on DT, the US plans to build several more of them.

OTOH, without going into specifics about charge needed/charge time, I doubt that the electric infrastructure has the needed capacity to support a mass defection to electric. Remember that the amount of energy consumed by a moving car does not change, an electric car just changes where you get that energy from. Building the necessary plants to produce extra millions of joules/watt of juice per day will be quite the challenge if any switchover is going to happen.

RE: Tesla
By EE Pete on 3/11/2008 11:54:53 AM , Rating: 2
The fuel rods themselves produce consistent power due to the decay, but there are control rods to slow down the reactions.

The reaction rate can be controlled and I am assuming the generator substation can also do whatever it pleases. I bet they have pressure relief valves that bypass the turbines and head straight for the cooling towers.

Given if there isn't enough demand energy will be wasted.

I too, don't think the grid is ready for an onslaught of electric vehicles. It would be cool if dealers offered a solar panel with every electric car. Not that it would be enough for the car, but enough to help out the gird and your wallet:\ yeah right.

RE: Tesla
By ineedaname on 3/11/2008 2:25:05 PM , Rating: 2
Remember that the amount of energy consumed by a moving car does not change, an electric car just changes where you get that energy from.

This is not completely correct. An electric car motor can reach about 90% efficiency whereas a gas motor has much lower efficiency due to energy loss to heat. So although the amount of energy to move a car is the same, this efficiency factor changes how much overall energy is needed.

RE: Tesla
By Spuke on 3/11/2008 5:00:49 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone know what the efficiency for electric motors in present cars is?

RE: Tesla
By rcc on 3/11/2008 3:26:22 PM , Rating: 2
You have some fundemental misunderstanding of the way in which electricity works. Having the plants run at full capacity would be wasteful, but would not affect the frequency of the AC current, nor would it blow circuit breakers or equipment.

It might be helpful for you to consider electrical power as being drawn, not being pushed.

The power plants (with the exception of solar obviously) have the same potential for power generation at night. But unless someone, or a lot of someones actually pull additional power it's just that, potential.

RE: Tesla
By 91TTZ on 3/11/2008 11:51:26 PM , Rating: 2
The power plants produce the same amount of electricity throughout the day and at night most of the electricity goes unused

This isn't true. Power plants are able to throttle the amount of electricity produced. Also, they have auxiliary plants that only only come online when you have a day of high usage. They're smart enough not to just throw electricity away.

RE: Tesla
By NickF001 on 3/10/2008 4:36:32 PM , Rating: 5
A power plant converts fossil fuels into electricity MUCH more efficiently than an internal combustion burns fuel

RE: Tesla
By Xerio on 3/10/2008 4:47:30 PM , Rating: 1
I'll give you that.

I just don't like the mentality that electric cars are "green". They only use less fossil fuels. Now if you could power these electric cars with high-efficiency solar panels (that don't really exist, as far as I know), then great!

RE: Tesla
By BansheeX on 3/10/2008 5:15:38 PM , Rating: 5
They only use less fossil fuels.

Look, whining because infrastructure and cars are not changing simultaneously is like whining that sloppy joe's are messy. Your pessimism arises from an impossible expectation and it wasn't worth injecting it into the discussion.

RE: Tesla
By Spuke on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Tesla
By Spuke on 3/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Tesla
By mindless1 on 3/11/2008 12:20:10 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is you don't understand what "green" really means. It NEVER meants man has no impact on the planet, everything we do (including chewing down trees with our teeth to make a simple hut of wood, mud and straw) has an impact.

Green is making choices that have the potential to reduce our impact. We've come close to the end of the road (pun?) with ICE in automobiles, think about electric cars as being in their infancy and can only get better with 100 years of development like ICE cars have had.

If the early pioneers rejected ICE autombiles because they weren't initially any better, more reliable, etc, than a horse 'n buggy, where would we be today? This is only the beginning of an exciting time, darn shame all these exotic cars are being designed when what we really need is enough affordable vehicles on the road to make charging stations profitable for entrepreneurs to set up because ultimately the idea of only charging the car at home at night isn't going to work acceptibly for everyone or even anyone 100% of the time.

Maybe best reserved for fleet vehicles until we have suitable charging station infrastructure and when you're selling power at a *gas* station, wouldn't it be nice if that covered canapy over the *pumps* had a large solar panel array on top?

There's the key, you can in fact choose how you produce the power for the vehicle. If you can afford this $300,000 car you probably have enough money to buy a few solar panels for your roof which may not provide 100% of the power but it is a step towards your idea. If everyone had electric cars, power panels on the roof might become standard equipment on newer upscale homes.

RE: Tesla
By Spuke on 3/11/2008 1:02:29 AM , Rating: 2
If you can afford a $300k car, then you already have an energy efficient home. Most of big, expensive homes are EE because they can afford to pay for it. But that's not where the difference lies. It's the working class person that needs to be able to afford an EE home because we're the majority. A co-worker has a solar array in back of his house. Powers 70-75% of his home and cost him $50k ($30k after the incentives and stuff). Wind turbines are cheaper ($30k before incentives)) but not all neighborhoods allow them.

For the money savings alone there isn't a person on the planet that wouldn't love to have an EE home but most of us just can't afford it. And now that everyone's (almost) equity is dried up, we can't even use that.

RE: Tesla
By Trippytiger on 3/10/2008 4:46:52 PM , Rating: 4
And why is that a bad thing? Consider this: the internal combustion engines in our cars are quite inefficient, noisy, and tend to dump their emissions into heavily populated areas. It's wasteful and it's a health issue.

So why not offload power generation from ICEs to, in the worst case scenario, coal fired power plants? They're not particularly clean themselves, of course, but they're (relatively) more efficient, and it's easier to implement stringent emissions controls at a single source than several hundred million. They're also at least somewhat removed from the most heavily populated regions.

Also keep in mind that not all current power generation requires fossil fuels. Hydroelectricity, for example, is a substantial source of power in many regions.

Personally, I look forward to the day that I can walk down a street in the middle of a city without inhaling engine fumes and listening to vehicle after vehicle roar past. Regardless of how the power for electric cars is generated, I think they'll be a huge step forward.

RE: Tesla
By Xerio on 3/10/2008 4:53:48 PM , Rating: 1
I am not arguing that driving an electric car is the same as driving a petroleum powered car. I am arguing that electric cars are not as "green" as many people think.

RE: Tesla
By Trippytiger on 3/10/2008 4:59:07 PM , Rating: 2
Fair enough.

RE: Tesla
By CarsonM on 3/10/2008 5:31:38 PM , Rating: 3

The only green I care about is the green I'm spending at the pump. Once these cars hit mass production and the cost comes down, the majority of people will be buying them to save cash not stop Global-Scamming oops.. I mean Warming.

RE: Tesla
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 7:05:10 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is they won't be saving money, at least not initially. The Volt is already up the $35k and GM isn't anywhere near done working out the tech.

RE: Tesla
By joex444 on 3/10/2008 8:22:05 PM , Rating: 2
Seeing how gasoline engines are 10% efficient, an electric car is much more efficient.

Now, in my area, the electric plant is nuclear. This is also efficient and happens to release the fewest hydrocarbon (what do you know? uranium isn't a hydrocarbon, so no green house gases!). So, if I had one of these, I would truly release no CO2, and so NOx gases. It doesn't get greener than that!

On top of it, virtually every power company allows end users to request their power come from renewable sources. Sure, there's an extra fee, but they are required to honor your request. So, while your power may not specifically come from a wind plant or a geothermal plant, they are distributing enough of the power to end users from these sources to comply with your request.

And of course, let's not forget: Whenever you bring up electric cars, someone points out there is an electric plant. But, nobody thinks to realize that gasoline isn't dug out of the ground at your Exxon station. No, it's sucked from foreign soil, taken over on a diesel powered barge to a refinery, which consumes more electricity than Google, and that is taken by diesel truck to your gas station.

You tell me in more than 3 lines how electric cars aren't green. Until then I'm assuming you are the CEO of Exxon/Mobil.

RE: Tesla
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 9:40:45 PM , Rating: 2
What kind of efficiency are we talking about here? Everyone throws around the word efficiency but no one has said which kind they are talking about.

RE: Tesla
By Spuke on 3/11/2008 5:17:40 PM , Rating: 2
Found out from another post that we're talking about thermal efficiency. BTW, most engines do NOT have TE's at 10%. Most are over 20% and can be as high as 40% or more. There's no static number that applies to ALL engines.

RE: Tesla
By Steve Guilliot on 3/10/2008 8:35:52 PM , Rating: 2
not reason enough to say that we are polluting the world less by using electric cars.

You're changing your position because you've been called out. Above, you were saying that electric cars are just as polluting [as everything else]. Now that it's been explained why this is wrong, you've toned down your rhetoric significantly.

RE: Tesla
By mindless1 on 3/11/2008 12:31:13 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, we can't yet assume the total impact of switching would be less polluting because we're basing these assumptions on current power generation - not generation at the greatly increased scale that would be required if most people drived electric cars.

You can do something very efficiency but what if you are required to increase your capacity? Does it work out as efficiently or do you have to optimize your process for output instead of efficiency? Time will tell, tearing down gas stations and producing home chargers for every joe on the planet tends to cause some pollution and environmental waste as well.

I DO think over the long term the electric cars will be greener but presumptions about it that assume certain things remain constants have to be taken with a grain of salt since some are clearly variables. We can assume it's possible for electric cars to be greener and we trust people will make the right decisions to see that happen, but it's not automatically guaranteed.

RE: Tesla
By Xerio on 3/11/2008 12:50:40 PM , Rating: 2
How am I changing my position?
Whether you drive electric or gasoline powered vehicles you are still polluting and using fossil fuels.
That is all I have said. I never said that electric vehicles pollute the same as ICE vehicles. I only said that whether you use electric or ICE, you are still polluting.

By the way, I do NOT believe that global warming has been significantly impacted by anything that humans have done. I do believe, however, that we should reduce our dependence on fossile fuels if for no other reasons than to reduce our dependence on other nations and to stop mining for coal.

RE: Tesla
By mattflaschen on 3/12/2008 4:27:26 AM , Rating: 2
Electricity is not a magical energy source. It's not an energy source at all, just a transmission medium. But even an electric car that runs of coal is more efficient than the most efficient gasoline automobile. The Roadster gets the equivalent of 130 mpg.

RE: Tesla
By ajcoyote on 4/2/2008 11:12:03 PM , Rating: 2
Thats not the only benefit of electric cars, and there is lots of ways we get electricity, yeah we use oil but we also use a lot of other sources, and we are always finding better ways to get electricity efficiently and effectively. So you can't say it won't make a diffrence just because we use oil for electricity.

RE: Tesla
By Desslok on 3/10/2008 3:52:13 PM , Rating: 2
Forgive me if I don't put much weight into that production date seeing how it was supposed to start back in October of '07.

I didn't see it mentioned in the article are the transmissions still locked into the higher gear to help boost the reliability of the transmission?

RE: Tesla
By bhieb on 3/10/2008 4:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
consisting of four 120 kW permanent magnet brushless motors)
I am probably wrong here but would that not mean there is no transmission. I assume since there are 4 motors they would be tied directly to each wheel so there would not be a normal tranny.

RE: Tesla
By Desslok on 3/10/2008 5:05:31 PM , Rating: 2
That is what I thought also, but according to several articles I have read there is a transmission.

From the USAToday article

The biggest hurdle, however, has been the transmission. Much time was spent trying to develop a two-speed transmission. Now, Tesla engineers are going back to a single-speed design.

RE: Tesla
By PlasmaBomb on 3/10/2008 7:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
The previous poster was talking about the lightning's 4 x 120kW electric motors. Sorry for the confusion.

RE: Tesla
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 7:06:44 PM , Rating: 2
You're getting confused between the Tesla and the Lightning. The Lightning has 4 motors and the article hasn't stated whether or not there will be a transmission.

RE: Tesla
By PlasmaBomb on 3/10/2008 7:12:31 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks to elFarto's link -

Providing high torque in a lightweight flat motor package, Hi-Pa Drive™ is ideally suited to vehicle in wheel drives , where its impact on suspension dynamics is minimal.

RE: Tesla
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 9:42:18 PM , Rating: 2
where its impact on suspension dynamics is minimal.
Err..putting the motors on the drive wheels won't impact suspension dynamics? Am I missing something here?

RE: Tesla
By PlasmaBomb on 3/11/2008 6:38:08 AM , Rating: 2
25 kilos would have quite an impact on the suspension, as it will massively increase the unsprung weight. I didn't write the article though :)

RE: Tesla
By PrinceGaz on 3/11/2008 2:08:20 AM , Rating: 2
Electric traction motors have long been directly geared to the driving axles in railway locomotives. In fact the issues on electric (and diesel-electric, that is those with a diesel engine driving an alternator to provided equivalent electric-power) locomotives.

Variable ratio transmission is preferable because whilst in theory electric motors can provide very high torque if sufficient amperage is put through them, they soon overheat in practice. Cooling of electric traction motors is one of the most important considerations of them.

In trains, different ratios aren't an option because of how they are mounted so a trade-off is always made between top-speed of a locomotive or unit, and maximum tractive-effort (acceleration or pulling-power). In general with trains, because the steel wheels on steel rails mean adhesion is limited, the locomotive can be geared to the maximum speed without really impacting its low-speed performance (it can't accelerate much faster if geared lower because of insufficient grip at times). The acceleration of the locomotive will be fairly constant up to quite a high speed (at least 40mph).

In a car with rubber-tyres on tarmac, fast 0-60 times would probably not be possible with a single-ratio transmission because the amperage required would exceed what is safe for the motor. A lower-gear will allow it to make full use of the grip at lower speeds without needing to take the motor beyond its amperage limits (though with suitable cooling, motors can be taken considerably above their recommended limits for short periods), a potential advantage electric-cars have in the acceleration area. Red-sector amps could accelerate an electric sports-car from 0-60 very quickly indeed, provided it had time to cool down afterwards.

RE: Tesla
By theapparition on 3/12/2008 10:15:04 AM , Rating: 2
Very nice explanation. I completely agree.

Simply stated, an electric motor cannot directly drive the wheels, there must be some sort of gearing to multiply torque. Now, that can be direct single speed gearing, which either limits acceleration or top speed, or it can be multispeed gearing (aka transmission) that switches gears to optimize driving conditions.

For example, let's take a modern competitive (to gas powered) sports car. Assume that you want a 4.0sec 0-60mph time, 12.5sec 1/4mile, and 200mph top speed. For a direct drive motor (with no gearing) it would have to produce a peak torque of 4000ft-lbs and 3000RPM. Conventional motors are more than capable of the 3000RPM, but produce nowhere near the 4000ft-lbs. Considering that these motors only produce roughly 400ft-lbs, you need 10X gearing to obtain that 4000ft-lbs goal, which now means you need a 30,000RPM motor. See how dificult it gets!

Obviously, transmissions have been used extensively in gas powered autos, so I don't understand why there is any design issues with incorporating them in electric cars.

By Chris Peredun on 3/10/2008 3:47:46 PM , Rating: 2
"... torque figures should also be quite lofty for the vehicle given the intense twisting force available with electric motors."

I predict 1000lb-ft ... at 0 rpm .

I also predict that owners of the Lightning GT will change their tires more often than their oil, unless there's some serious traction control being put to work here.

RE: Torque
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 3:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
I predict 1000lb-ft ... at 0 rpm .
Did someone figure out some magic transmission technology that even Tesla is not aware of?

RE: Torque
By Screwballl on 3/10/2008 4:12:58 PM , Rating: 1
Remember, the rpm number is based on rotary or internal combustion engine revolutions per minute. With an electric system, there is no "rpm" except at the tires and maybe a driveshaft so the standard RPM figure is not able to be used.
They could use something like 1000 foot pounds of torque at 200kW (just an example)... or just leave off the power rating and simply say 700hp equivalent and 1000 ft/lb torque.
Also some electric based vehicles have a small motor (not engine) at each wheel or 2 drive wheels which moves the vehicle so there is no need for a transmission or driveshaft.

RE: Torque
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 4:20:07 PM , Rating: 2
With an electric system, there is no "rpm" except at the tires and maybe a driveshaft so the standard RPM figure is not able to be used.
No rpm on an electric motor? What kind of electric motor are you talking about? Here dude you need to read this:

Also some electric based vehicles have a small motor (not engine) at each wheel or 2 drive wheels which moves the vehicle so there is no need for a transmission or driveshaft.
Yet the Tesla STILL uses one.

RE: Torque
By Chris Peredun on 3/10/2008 4:30:33 PM , Rating: 3
My initial point is that the rated amount of torque will be available from standstill. A better rating would be the TCR (Torque - Continuous Rating) of what the engine can provide without exceeding its nominal operating temperature. But the closest analog to the current "peak torque" - in other words, the number that manufacturers will boast about - will be "torque at 0rpm."

In other words, with a solid launch control system and a set of sticky tires, this car will launch like a ball bearing from a slingshot.

RE: Torque
By boogle on 3/10/2008 5:08:08 PM , Rating: 2
Just want to clarify what you said (as I understand it). A typical petrol car has varying amounts of torque depending on the rpm is. An electric car has the same amount of torque regardless of the rpm. In essence you can theoretically say that the torque is at 0rpm (or 9,999rpm, doesn't matter).

RE: Torque
By PlasmaBomb on 3/10/2008 6:50:44 PM , Rating: 2
Perhaps this slide will help you - It's a comparison of the tesla's torque with a petrol engine.

As the tesla's motor rpm increases its torque decreases. Therefore it is correct to say maximum torque is at (or very close to) zero rpm.

RE: Torque
By Screwballl on 3/10/2008 5:07:47 PM , Rating: 1
Some use a separate motor per wheel which means the RPM is on a per wheel basis, not at the typical IC engine level. So during a typical turn, one wheel may be at 100 RPM and another may be at 200 rpm so the horsepower and torque levels cannot be measured using standard reporting.
Yes it may still use rpms but not in the conventional method.

RE: Torque
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 6:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
RPM = Revolutions Per Minute. There's no other definition or way to look at it. It's simply a measurement of a rotating object. The shaft in an electric motors rotates, therefore its rotation can be measured in RPM.

RE: Torque
By infl8tdego on 3/11/2008 10:03:52 AM , Rating: 2
With ICEs RPMs are measuring engine speeds, No ICE has torque at 0 RPMs. Electrics do, from a standing start, they can apply torque. A transmission and flywheel would probably be a better way to convert braking torque to kinetic energy since you can do so with minimal loss. Converting braking torque to electricity is inherently inefficient since there is loss at every conversion stage.

RE: Torque
By Spuke on 3/11/2008 10:27:51 AM , Rating: 2
With ICEs RPMs are measuring engine speeds, No ICE has torque at 0 RPMs.
It STILL doesn't change the definition of RPM! Nor does it change the FACT that electric motors have rotating shafts that can be measured in RPM.

RE: Torque
By FITCamaro on 3/10/2008 3:54:37 PM , Rating: 1
Regardless. It'll cost you $300,000 to get a car that can do (performance wise) what a $75,000 Corvette Z06 can do while only being able to go (probably at best) 100 miles per "tank" vs. the Vette's 300 miles per tank (or more. i forget how big the Vette's tank is). And it's top speed is far lower.

RE: Torque
By Brandon Hill on 3/10/2008 4:00:22 PM , Rating: 2
A Nissan GT-R is faster for even less money.

**Waits for FITCamaro to come back waving his American flag**


RE: Torque
By Xerio on 3/10/2008 4:14:23 PM , Rating: 2
Nissan GT-R. The first car to rival the Corvette's dollar/performace ratio. Woo hoo!

But only if you can find one that has not been marked up like crazy. :)

RE: Torque
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 4:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
But only if you can find one that has not been marked up like crazy. :)
The Z06 was marked up too when it was introduced.

RE: Torque
By Sazar on 3/10/2008 5:34:59 PM , Rating: 2

From all the testing and numbers released, isn't it a better performing, better handling vehicle in a cheaper package that also happens to seat 4 adults and doesn't require you to pour yourself into a seat?

Every report I have seen, from Top Gear to Edmunds to Fifth gear says this car is a better performer and buy than the new 911 Turbo or the Corvette.

Maybe I am missing something?

RE: Torque
By EglsFly on 3/11/2008 1:42:05 AM , Rating: 2
For even less money, Performance and Practicality combined. BR350 edition EVO.

0-60 in 3.9 seconds
4 door (seats up to 5)
All Wheel Drive (all weather, year round)

RE: Torque
By Xirj on 3/10/2008 5:18:33 PM , Rating: 1
Let's see some real performance figures not MoronTrend with the custom grooved track tires.

RE: Torque
By FITCamaro on 3/10/2008 10:36:46 PM , Rating: 2
*Waves his American flag*

I'd buy a Corvette. Not a GT-R.

RE: Torque
By Brandon Hill on 3/11/2008 8:05:44 AM , Rating: 3
Of course you would, you're a GM slave with a clear pro-everything America bias ;-)

RE: Torque
By Sandok on 3/11/2008 12:26:45 PM , Rating: 2
No duh... lol.

God I hate nationalism!

RE: Torque
By HOOfan 1 on 3/11/2008 10:32:24 AM , Rating: 2
I think the GT-R is actually about the same price as the Z06...both are about $70,000-$75,000 Also numbers I have seen show it isn't faster but pretty fast. 3.5-3.7 0-60 versus 3.4-3.8 on Z06, top speed of 193mph versus 198mph on Z06.

RE: Torque
By Sandok on 3/11/2008 12:24:59 PM , Rating: 2
But around the Nurenburg ring, the GTR is WAY faster ;)

RE: Torque
By theapparition on 3/12/2008 10:37:00 AM , Rating: 2
There is some debate on this. The GT-R's time was a fly-by, tested by Nissan engineers and has not been duplicated.

The Z06 test was from a standing start and it was done with an early model that wasn't set up for track performance (later models had changes to the suspension to make them more track oriented).

RE: Torque
By theapparition on 3/12/2008 10:39:36 AM , Rating: 2
They are very competitive on paper, but if I ever meet a GTR on the track, the only chance he'll have is if I crash.

RE: Torque
By Lightning III on 3/10/2008 4:01:08 PM , Rating: 4


RE: Torque
By Lazarus Dark on 3/10/2008 4:49:18 PM , Rating: 2
ahahaha. I didn't catch that at first.

RE: Torque
By Omega215D on 3/10/2008 5:32:44 PM , Rating: 2
Greased lightning?

Seriously I'm sure there are some things that still need lubricating anyhow.

RE: Torque
By kenji4life on 3/10/2008 4:29:48 PM , Rating: 2
The 'controllers' used to push the "four 120 kW permanent magnet brushless motors" are pretty advanced, and usually account for a large chunk of the cost of an electric vehicle. Anything less than an advanced semi-independant (if not fully 4-way) bias system on a car this price would be unacceptable. I'd speculate a system rivaling that of the other 4wd giants- Nissan, Audi, Subaru, and of course Mitsubishi.

RE: Torque
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 4:32:16 PM , Rating: 2
"four 120 kW permanent magnet brushless motors"
I wonder how much this car will weigh?

RE: Torque
By SilthDraeth on 3/10/2008 4:55:22 PM , Rating: 2
"I also predict that owners of the Lightning GT will change their tires more often than their oil, unless there's some serious traction control being put to work here."

In the traditional sense of changing the oil in a modern day ICE based vehicle, one wouldn't have oil to change in an electric vehicle.

That statement is the equivalent of stating "They will be changing their tires more often than they fill up on gas."

RE: Torque
By elFarto on 3/10/2008 4:58:14 PM , Rating: 2
The Lightning is powered by PML Flightlink's Hi-Pa hub motors. The most powerful of which have a maximum of 750Nm of torque. See:

Each motor has built in anti-slip control so they shouldn't eat too many tires. Each one weighs about 25kg.


RE: Torque
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 6:56:42 PM , Rating: 2
The most powerful of which have a maximum of 750Nm of torque. See:
That's 553 lb-ft for us Americans. Impressive if there's more than one motor.

RE: Torque
By PlasmaBomb on 3/10/2008 7:08:10 PM , Rating: 2
There are four motors.

RE: Torque
By phorensic on 3/10/2008 5:37:10 PM , Rating: 2
Today's hybrid vehicles make use of nickel-metal hybrid (NiMH) batteries...

Should be nickel-metal hydride .

5.7 seconds?
By kkwst2 on 3/10/2008 3:57:33 PM , Rating: 2
I think (hope) the 0-60 time is a typo. The original times on this thing were supposed to be around 3 seconds. I think they've since been relaxed to 4 seconds...but 5.7 seconds would be quite lame for a car in this price bracket. There are cars near the $30,000 price range that can beat that.

RE: 5.7 seconds?
By Topweasel on 3/10/2008 4:09:04 PM , Rating: 2
Stop me if I am wrong but I am pretty sure the 5.7 numbers where for the Fisker car. Since all of its torque is available from the first press of the accelerator it hits the 60 number pretty fast for a car that tops out at just over 80.

Actually it was both the Fisker and the Tesla. They say under 4 seconds for this car (3 seconds is under 4)

RE: 5.7 seconds?
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 4:15:12 PM , Rating: 2
The article says under 4 seconds for the Lightning. The Tesla was supposed to be around 4 seconds too but the reality of getting a transmission to handle all of that instant torque slapped them across the face. I doubt seriously that the Lightning's tranny will be any better.

RE: 5.7 seconds?
By Brandon Hill on 3/10/2008 4:14:35 PM , Rating: 2
The 5.7 second quote for the Tesla roadster is using the temporary one-speed transmission that will go in all first-run production Tesla Roadsters.

The final-spec two-speed transmission will allow the Tesla to sprint to 60 MPH in 4 seconds, but it won't be ready until later this year.

RE: 5.7 seconds?
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 4:22:49 PM , Rating: 2
The final-spec two-speed transmission will allow the Tesla to sprint to 60 MPH in 4 seconds, but it won't be ready until later this year.
If ever.

Power balancing?
By ninjit on 3/10/2008 8:55:48 PM , Rating: 3
consisting of four 120 kW permanent magnet brushless motors) and 36 kW NanoSafe battery system

Err... that doesn't seem right, 4x 120kW = 480 kW.
All that load on a 36 kW power supply??

Granted that rating is probably th peak power of each motor, but even so, let's say on average they draw 1/4 that.
So you're still pulling 120kW.

Seems like there's something missing from the battery system specification.
360 kW
360 kWH maybe?

RE: Power balancing?
By Brandon Hill on 3/11/2008 8:07:42 AM , Rating: 2
CGI modelling FTW!
By grenableu on 3/10/2008 3:31:49 PM , Rating: 2
That's one way to sell investors on a vaporware product!

RE: CGI modelling FTW!
By wushuktl on 3/10/2008 4:17:49 PM , Rating: 2
i agree. this is a growing trend of 'news.' People announcing what they're planning on doing. it's hard to call it news; it's just plain hype. it's news when it's actually achieved.

This recent article is an example:

It just makes things more disappointing of the goal is never reached

Hype and some CGI
By rhangman on 3/10/2008 9:44:57 PM , Rating: 2
I agree some hype and 3D rendered images hardly qualify as news. Toyota did add two electric motors to a Mk IV Supra though, so I guess it should be possible to add an extra 2 electric motors to any RWD car for some extra power and efficiency.

Personally a car, especially a fast one needs to make the right noise and you aren't going to get that from electric motors. Still good for drive-bys I guess.

RE: Hype and some CGI
By 7Enigma on 3/13/2008 9:28:38 AM , Rating: 2
Comon, if you can put a earth-shaking sound system in a Civic, you can easily use that system tied to the "engine" so your car sounds as bad as you want it to.

It will be the new RAGE in modding.

"Hmm, today I want my car to sound like a Ferrari, tomorrow a V8 big block, tomorrow I'll probably have a hangover so I'll go stealth, and Friday I want the Flight of the Bumblebee (aka fart pipe)"

By infl8tdego on 3/11/2008 10:15:54 AM , Rating: 2
Before jumping on the "Green" bandwagon, be aware that disposal of the components of batteries vs. the disposal of an aluminum block or iron block engine is potentially greater. There are fewer recyclable materials in batteries and electrical components and higher levels of toxicity than in your typical engine.
All things being equal (body, transmission if any, interior, etc.) current technology has toxic environmental impact for the electrics a bit higher than traditional cars.
Even with Lithium Ion, life cycle for battery packs is estimated to be between 30k and 50k with a $20K-$35K price tag to replace.
This is going to be the biggest stumbling block for battery powered cars. Electrics using non-combustive fuel cells may be a better alternative. Using H, efficiency numbers for fuel cells hit 80%. Using CNG or LPG, we can hit 45%-50% using today's technology. Infrastructure is already in place to deliver this resource in many parts of the country.
Non-recyclables are minimal in this technology.

RE: "Green"
By jRaskell on 3/11/2008 1:47:21 PM , Rating: 2
IMO it's these very reasons as well as several others that electric powered vehicles won't truly be mainstream until they drop battery technology completely and switch to dedicated capacitor storage instead.

Of course, that still requires some additional advances be made in high end capacitor based storage, but with 2-3 more generations of supercapacitors, we'll likely reach the point where electric cars can use capacitors that will get them up to 300+ mile ranges but more importantly be capable of fully recharging in a matter of minutes or less (assuming an adequate power source).

Capacitors are much more capable of taking advantage of regenerative braking as well, and have significantly longer lifespans than batteries. Number of recharges measured in the millions instead of thousands or tens of thousands. And so far, no exotic and/or hazzardous materials are required even for existing supercaps, unlike current battery technologies.

I definitely consider pure electric cars as the ideal future path for global transportation for a number of reasons, but I also think capacitor based storage will be the ideal long term solution. Battery tech is really only a short term solution as a fuel source. Luckily it shouldn't be too difficult a task to convert any existing battery based vehicles over to capacitor based sources when such technology finally becomes viable.

By GhandiInstinct on 3/10/2008 5:32:00 PM , Rating: 2
And it was the GT Lightning.

NiMH battery
By dajeepster on 3/10/2008 5:35:03 PM , Rating: 2
shouldn't that be nickel-metal hydride battery and not nickel-metal hybrid battery

Looks like an Aston Martin
By HOOfan 1 on 3/11/2008 10:23:49 AM , Rating: 2
Looks a little like a Vantage V8

By Fnoob on 3/11/2008 10:44:46 AM , Rating: 2
A $300K+ Jaguar XF ? No thanks.

By UppityMatt on 3/11/2008 2:32:19 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone know what it would cost to charge this car from empty to full? I look at my driving pattern and it appears to me that i should be able to drive almost an entire week on a charge that lasts for 250 miles. If it only costs $5-10 or in a similar range this car would be way more efficient then paying 42-47 every week to fill up. I think we need more focus on a daily commuter car and not a luxury sports car. If you could pick a car like this up for 10k, i think you would definitely start to see some adoption.

By Seemonkeyscanfly on 3/11/2008 3:49:19 PM , Rating: 2
For an electric car everything seem very impressive, speed and travel distance. However, if I wanted to say travel from Chicago IL to Tampa FL about 1,200 miles, today I can do it in about 24 hours minding speed limits (including gas stops).
How long would it take to do this trip in an electric car? In short; how long to charge the battery?

Leveling the Playing Field
By Spuke on 3/12/2008 1:32:23 PM , Rating: 2
One thing about electric cars is that all cars will be essentially equal with only features to differentiate between them. If you want your Hyundai to perform like a Ferrari, it will be much simpler to do.

By Runiteshark on 3/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pathetic
By wushuktl on 3/10/2008 4:11:00 PM , Rating: 3
i sometimes wonder about DailyTech commentors. Obviously we see all the time that new technology always costs more upon initial release than it should be valued. So why even bother comparing this to currently available products? Seems like a worthless argument to me

RE: Pathetic
By omnicronx on 3/10/2008 4:19:13 PM , Rating: 2
The Tesla is not suppose to go into production until next week, furthermore that 300k is an estimate of the price it will be available for upon release, not some imaginary number of what it is worth now. Fact of the matter is, the Tesla is going to be a hell of a lot cheaper.

Now lets wait for the specs to go down in the up and coming months. I remember a DT article saying the top end Tesla was suppose to go 0-60 in 3.8, look how that turned out ;)

RE: Pathetic
By Runiteshark on 3/10/2008 4:28:28 PM , Rating: 1
Whats the point of buying something thats worlds more expensive when you can get the same amount of performance from something 1/3rd of the price right now, not 10 years from now?

Go ahead and tell me that now.

RE: Pathetic
By knacko on 3/11/2008 1:02:42 AM , Rating: 2
It's too bad they didn't use this same argument in the first stages of the computer. A trained hand could do advanced math much quicker than any computer, take up 1/100 the space and cost 1/1000 as much. Oh wait, we wouldn't have computers then (though it would save us from ignorant fools).

It's called PROGRESS. It doesn't matter if current technology is comparable and much less expensive, there's always a market for the new and exotic. The target audience for first generation electric cars is not going to be suburban housewives. Rich old guys are going to use it to brag to their friends. Someone always has to foot the bill for new innovation, and more often than not, it's the rich.

RE: Pathetic
By Spuke on 3/10/2008 4:30:15 PM , Rating: 2
So why even bother comparing this to currently available products?
You are absolutely correct. We should not be comparing "new" tech to "old" tech. And that philosophy should also be used when comparing a C2D to an A64. reality it's not. Comparisons will be made in order to justify the purchase. Right now, today, it costs a WHOLE lot less than $300k to get 60 mph in 4 seconds or less.

If you really believe what you just said, put your money where your mouth is and pony up the cash for one of these "high-tech" electric cars. And be happy getting smoked by cheaper, "low-tech" cars.

RE: Pathetic
By Runiteshark on 3/10/2008 4:56:19 PM , Rating: 2
Thats exactly what I was thinking. Where are geniuses like this when people compared A64s to the new C2s? And then the C2Qs?

Just because something is "new tech" doesn't suddenly make it immune to scrutiny. If something costs a ton, and doesn't offer viable improvements to what we already have then you give me a good reason why I shouldn't compare it.

RE: Pathetic
By bobbronco on 3/11/2008 12:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
Spuke's arguements circa 1900:

You're right! Why would I pony up the cash for one of these new fangled horseless carriages that costs $1700 dollars and requires the use of kerosene when my horse and buggy can get me into town and back faster and for a fraction of the cost.

That new technology is the devil's work I tell you! -a pointless symbol of hedonistic excess.

RE: Pathetic
By Spuke on 3/11/2008 1:10:12 AM , Rating: 2
That new technology is the devil's work I tell you! -a pointless symbol of hedonistic excess.
Yep that's exactly what I said AND what I meant too. :rollseyes:

RE: Pathetic
By Sandok on 3/11/2008 11:56:31 AM , Rating: 2
So let's the the 0-60 times of these cars you mentioned...

Starting with the Vette, the Z06 does 0-60 in 3.9 so BARELY under four seconds.

Next, the Viper (or more correctly SRT-10) which does it also in 3.9 (again barely under four seconds).

Yet these cars are using tried and true technology with years and years of experience. And even among supercars, their 0-60 time is pathetic (a Bugatti does it in 2.5 seconds just to give an example).

For a first electric supercar to do it in under four seconds, that's DAMN impressive.

RE: Pathetic
By Runiteshark on 3/11/2008 1:35:44 PM , Rating: 2
Where on earth do you get your facts? The moon?

"the 505-horsepower Corvette Z06—will achieve 0-60 mph in
3.7 seconds while still in first gear,"

"For the straight-line drag racers it’s a close call with the Viper pulling 0-60 in 3.5 seconds running through the 1/4 mile barrier in 11.6 seconds at 126 MPH."

These cars can go 60mph in their first gear .

And in further addition:


STi: (35k)
0-60 4.6 (Car and Driver)

Lets bring the price up eh?

Hennesy Viper Venom (Twin Turbo old viper)
0-60 mph: 3.2 sec. (1st Place Overall)

Lingenfelter Corvette Twin Turbo 427:
0-100 km/h | 0-60 mph 1.97 seconds (on slick tires )

0-60 MPH 3.2 seconds with street tires

How about cheaper cars?

Stage 3 WRX STI (TT)
0-60 3.1

And there is still yet cheaper times. Those 0-60 times you quoted are what? Not pushing the gas pedal all the way in? If you want to see actual times,
The Bugatti does 0-60 in 2.5s? Thats news to me. Last time I checked it was 2.9~3s, and thats a 1.5m car. You want to see something fast? Look at motorcycles. Practically every single one of them can do 0-60 in 3 seconds or less, wow so amazing.


RE: Pathetic
By Spuke on 3/11/2008 5:30:18 PM , Rating: 2
Comparing modified cars to factory one's is apples to oranges. Sure, modifying a less expensive car can increase your bang for the buck but what happens when that modified car has an aftermarket part that breaks? The warranty sure as hell isn't covering it. There's something to be said about having a fast car that's covered by the factory warranty. I'm not against modified cars either as my plans are to get around 350whp out of my Solstice but lets keep the modded cars separate from the factory one's.

RE: Pathetic
By Runiteshark on 3/11/2008 7:09:49 PM , Rating: 1
Aftermarket parts have a better warranty then stock parts, what are you talking about?

If I go and bust by brand new Brian Crower rods in my Acura RSX, they will replace them for free. If you buy cheap Chinese shit for your car, you have a lot more to worry about then just that individual part failing.

If you mean your "overall warranty" yeah, you will void it when you start tearing into your block.

You have a Solstice? Why did you get one of those..... ALL of Pontiacs lineup is either too heavy, or to underbuilt...

RE: Pathetic
By Spuke on 3/11/2008 7:32:46 PM , Rating: 2
You have a Solstice? Why did you get one of those..... ALL of Pontiacs lineup is either too heavy, or to underbuilt...
I have the turbo Solstice. The car a bit too heavy but then most cars are too heavy, IMO. The stock motor is pretty strong but it's still new so there's a lot to figure out. We figure the stock internals are good to 500hp, after that pistons and rods are necessary. Apparently, the rods and rods bolts are the weak points on the stock motor. The fuel system is good to some ungodly level (calculation's say 1200hp) but since it's direct injection we're not sure if those calculations apply but it's more than enough at 300whp.

I bought it because it's turbo'd, RWD and still weighs under 3000 lbs. Three things you rarely see nowadays at any price. It also has a great suspension setup stock and to make it better the parts can be found in the GM catalog. No coilovers needed unless you are a suspension engineer WITH a LOT of track time under your belt. The GM racing (ZOK) suspensions are SCCA national champ winners (SSB and T2) and are all that's needed.

RE: Pathetic
By Runiteshark on 3/11/2008 8:36:01 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, now I understand.

I've got my 2630lb Acura RSX Type-S thats intended to put out about 400-460whp fairly soon. I'm pretty excited.

RE: Pathetic
By Sandok on 3/12/2008 4:38:35 AM , Rating: 2
If I got my facts from the moon, you got 'em from Mars...

The Bugatti according to all the websites / magazines / shows / etc. gets 2.5 seconds from 0-100 kp/h (officially it's 2.46).

The Vette (z06) gets under 4 and if you say 3.7, I'll believe you given that road temperature, timing and such can all come into play.

As for the Viper, it gets a recorded 3.9 seconds so that I was correct (officially according to Dodge).

But of course, price ratio wise these cars are FAR too expensive given that an Ariel Atom or a Caterham (for example) can both get to 0-60 in under three seconds for a quarter of the price. As do bikes like you said (although you loose a lot in comfort but who cares when speed is king?)


Your post though shows that you failed to see what I was blabbing on about. Tell me, how many SPORTY electric cars do you know of? The Tesla? Maybe one or two others but really, the list is quite small.

In other words, we don't have THAT much expierence with this kind of powertrain and energy source in cars. And yet, even though the technology is in its infancy, we can get some VERY impressive 0-60 times and that's what I was talking about.

RE: Pathetic
By Spuke on 3/11/2008 2:05:09 PM , Rating: 2
For a first electric supercar to do it in under four seconds, that's DAMN impressive.
Actually it's not really all that impressive considering that electric motors have been around as long as gasoline one's and have had development via trains (not a stagnant technology).

RE: Pathetic
By jRaskell on 3/11/2008 2:11:45 PM , Rating: 2
Developing technology to power multi-thousand ton cargo containers cross country is hardly going to port over well to powering a 1-2ton car to 60mph in as short a time as possible.

Case in point, there's very little technological similarity between a 600hp Ferrari V12 and a 600hp Cummins turbodiesel tractor engine. Both make the same amount of power, but neither would be even remotely suited to perform the other's duties.

RE: Pathetic
By Spuke on 3/11/2008 5:32:53 PM , Rating: 2
Case in point, there's very little technological similarity between a 600hp Ferrari V12
There's a ton of similarity between those two motors. I'll list them:
1. Pistons
2. Rods
3. Crankshafts
4. Blocks
5. Cams
6. Fuel Injectors
7. Valve springs
8. Intake manifolds
9. Exhaust manifolds
10. Squish, bang, blow, suck

Did I miss anything?

RE: Pathetic
By Runiteshark on 3/11/2008 2:21:28 PM , Rating: 2
And the other thing that gets me is that these produce torque from 0 rpm, thats a huge advantage.

I'm equating this in my head:

AWD, 0rpm torque, 700hp only 4 seconds? (300k)


AWD 2500rpm decent torque 300hp 4.7s (35k)


RWD 900rpm good torque, 505hp 3.5s (70k)

Get what I mean now?

RE: Pathetic
By Sandok on 3/12/2008 4:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
It's been around for ages but the technology is just being tested now... The electric car is still in its infancy (dev wise).

Look at the amount of money pumped into petrol / diesel cars for the last 100 years and then compare this to the electric car's funding / dev time. Not quite the same.

RE: Pathetic
By Spuke on 3/12/2008 10:04:05 AM , Rating: 2
It is the same because the development has been done on trains (I'm sure there are others). Electric motors are not a stagnant tech.

"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins

Most Popular ArticlesAre you ready for this ? HyperDrive Aircraft
September 24, 2016, 9:29 AM
Leaked – Samsung S8 is a Dream and a Dream 2
September 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
Snapchat’s New Sunglasses are a Spectacle – No Pun Intended
September 24, 2016, 9:02 AM
Walmart may get "Robot Shopping Carts?"
September 17, 2016, 6:01 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki